Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The development of psychology (kind of essay)

Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 5:17pm

Luminon

Posts: 2455

Joined: 2008-02-17

Offline

The development of psychology (kind of essay)

I'd like to get a clearer view of contemporary psychology and it's future development. Later, instead of development of psychology, I become concerned with psychology of development. It is a bit long, serious reading, but hopefully interesting and I'm very sincere, as always. If people like DG or Hamby can write much longer and tedious articles than that and people does read them, why couldn't I? So let's begin.

I don't exactly mean the psychology's quantity only. For example, by development, I don't mean only the number of mental diseases found, medically described, and extinguished by drugs. This is not what I understand as a development.I will speak only very generally. I'm not exactly interested in history of psychology. I only want to make something sure. Thus my description will be a bit metaphoric.As I understand it, the first around the beginning of 20th century was interest in pathologic states of mind. The interest was in the deep, dark, violent and horny aspects of human behavior, which came on surface in persons of captured and uncaptured psychopaths and perverts. Or it was found suppressed within innocent patients, knowing nothing. My countryman, Sigmund Freud, could be a great figure of that time and direction. But not even he was reputedly brave enough to try this psychoanalysis on himself.

Next greater development could be perhaps described as a normal psychology. Well, if a person is capable of a simple work, basic housekeeping and hygienic habits, watching TV, procreation and keeping the state's financial offices satisfied, then he or she is considered normal, in our society. This direction of psychology is something under which I'd include an everyday psychology of lying on psychologist's couch and confessing, a psychology of commercials and marketing, or a psychology of seduction. This kind of psychology is typical by a fact, that it very well describes the majority of humanity. However, it is limited. Let's take a person, who has a house, college degree, family, savings, career, friends, and suddenly a lot of free time. He achieves all that in his, let's say, 40's. Such a person achieved everything he can, and a great question arises, what now? What next? Is it all there is to achieve in life? Are all the decades awaiting me just a countdown to death? Let's leave him for a while with that question.

Now I'll maybe sound a bit Jungianish, but what is the purpose of psychology? Keeping psychopaths in line? Maybe, when necessary. Making people capable of the basic actions described above? Maybe, when necessary. But what is the real purpose? Making people better. Not more obedient, not more credulous, not more competitive. Just...more perfect.The science has well described concepts like altruism or morality, and they're well explained in evolutionary terms. It is proven without doubt, that these concepts are real and that they're beneficial for our kind. So where is the psychology of that? Where is the science, focused on supporting the beneficial traits in individuals, groups and society as such? Where are the models of designing our institutions in such a way, that they support these values? Let's say, I wake up one day, and I decide that I want to be wiser, more kind, patient, more aware, more intelligent, more empathic, and so on. Then I go to the library, or on the internet, and I search for a real scientific methodology for achieving these things. What do you think I'd find there? If I speak in scientific terms, then bullshit, bunkum, crapology, nonsenses, and so on. In other words, New Age and religious stuff. Nothing more. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Where is the psychology of geniuses, saints, visionaries and heroes? Where is the scientific method of becoming more like that? Maybe this is, where the science becomes limited. At this point, too many of it becomes too similar to the ancient and recent "crapology". Some scientists are disgusted by that and they put their hands off, and some are seduced by that and they basically go into illegality and disgrace of their former colleagues. From what I heard, the study of psychology on the university (the rigid scholastic bastion) is mainly the history of psychology and it's failed attempts. They're interesting, but not useful as such. They only say what does NOT work. There are certain doctrines, and saying otherwise may get an unfortunate student thrown away from the exams. It is somewhat better now, but during the communism era, psychology stopped on the Pavlov's experiment with dogs, food and a signal. Of course, we can describe a majority of humanity with the common psychology, but there is an increasing amount of people, who does not fit into that. There are non-normal, non-pathologic states of mind, which have no contemporary scientific explanation. By coincidence, these states of mind are very thoroughly described by what the skeptics calls 'crapology'. By the law of supply and demand, intelligent, mature and curious people are forced to stray away from the realm of solid science.By that people, I can mean that person in his 40's, who already achieved "everything", but is not even nearly satisfied with that.

Such a person then has a problem with something, that our society is infested with - materialism. Who achieves "everything" in terms of materialism, may no longer consider it attractive. Such a person then may become brave - or desperate, to try some things which are not so solidly founded on science. Again, it is a perfectly natural thing, which happens to many people. I hope this is not getting too much far-fetched. And somehow, a strange thing may happen. Such a person can turn away from the official culture, values and science, and found his life on completely different values. He will defend these values as more progressive, beneficial, harmless, etc, than the values of majority. It is very doubtful that this person will return to the same life style and opinions as before. This means a change of life style, friends, hobbies, habits, and so on. A common psychologic knowledge would only dismiss this as a midlife crisis, and destroy a great opportunity for self-development. Again, I must emphasize, that the true purpose of psychology (and everything) is to become extraordinary, not to stay ordinary. From that point of view, our whole civilization is a scientific failure. It is founded on irrational principles, destructive, or at best, stagnant. Our knowlege of ourselves (psychology) is thus primitive. Knowing oneself was always held as a great virtue in many ancient civilizations. Gnothi seauthon, Self-mastery, Satori, and so on, such a concepts were so popular. How can we turn back to them, or better said, how our scientists can be un-blindfolded in that direction?

Maybe it is scientifically correct, that there is no sense of life. Maybe it is correct, that we are a separated biological machines, on a tiny, unsignificant planet in extremely big, hostile universe. But I dare to object, that this is no solution to any question. Because these very "answers", are, in fact, a dangerous problems demanding a solution. If we do not know the sense of life and our purpose, we do not know how to relate to each other correctly. We, as a humanity, are destroying ourselves, no matter how justified the evolutionary theory of morality is. The killers, victims and drug addicts does not care what Richard Dawkins says. It is no excuse that there is no sense of life. If there is one, we are obliged to find it, if there is none, we are obliged to invent it. And by that, I mean on a proven, scientific basis, with which it becomes a reality to all people. It will become impossible to treat our fellow man worse than an animal in industrial breeding, if we know that person's purpose. If we see ourselves correctly and act upon it, we will estabilish right human relationships. Then we can eliminate a global psychopathic behavior. Sometimes, whole nations should be put on a psychologist's couch, or even into a straight jacket. When you look at the history of humankind and analyze it as one person, you will see an agressive, sadistic, power-hungry, schizophrenic mass murderer, prone to all kinds of delusions, physical diseases, and states of inactivity and stagnation. There is a lot wrong with the world. How can I trust all the methods which allowed this to continue in existence?

I represent a way of thinking which gradually gains importance and public support, though it is still in minority. I think it is a correct, justified and important worldwiew, which is desperately needed in the world of today. The world is in many crises, which are basically a crisis of development. I am, above all, concerned with development. There is not only the developing itself, there is also a development of a ways of development. And one such a major shift in ways of development is now just about to come. I tried to explain in simple words and perhaps scientifically correct meanings, what is wrong with the mindset which is prevalent on this forum and in the world. You guys, the representants of skepticism, probably think that denouncing religion and embracing the contemporary science makes you the smartest in the world. You may not think it consciously, but you behave like that, and so it is with whole academic community. But rejecting one old tradition and accepting another old tradition is not a solution, it is also not nearly enough. The demands of development requires a creation of not only new institutions and traditions, but also of new methods, ways of thinking, models of behavior, moral values, cultures, and so on. I am waiting for your opinion.

Asking what you're asking will probably lead to another
blog, so I won't, and I'll throw out the following info for you...

Except fot the Behaviorist Pavlovian school (which has been abondoned for decades, (not to say that all his conclusions were were,
only that most were, as per treatment and the formulated school of psychology which subs ribed to Behavioral Psychology). Excep for the above-mentioned school, the exacting Scientific Method was "never" applied by the authors of the various schools of thought to formulate the wide variety of various schools of thought. Certainly, there were plenty of observations in some cases, and statistics gathered in some cases, and conclusions made in all cases.

As per psychological schools of thought being applied for the past several decades, and for the forseable future, they all go under the generic
heading of "Humanist". That's not to say you can't find practioners of arm-chair schools, such as Rational-Emotive, or Dyanetics.

As per the present and future, there are few psychologists that subscribe to any single school, most pick and choose various elements they find to be sensible and useful, from a wide variety of Humanist schools.

FYI. If you're interested in one such school which combines quite a bit of sociology and philosophy with Humanist Psychology, check out a few books by Dr. RD Laing.

Laing's views are on the extreme (in my opinion), but if you look at the larger picture of what he proposed, it's entirely sane, and I think that his "larger views" will be of particular interest to Atheists.

Don't get me wrong... Laing is WAY out there, as per his ultimate conclusions, but his observations and ideas that led to his school of thought were very Much on target, and
entirely unique, and apart from all other schools of psychology.

(In a nutshell, he proposes that society is insane, and the reactions of the "maladjusted", are in fact the reactions of the "adjusted", and all others whom do not exhibit any sign of "maladjustment" are in fact the very people that ARE
"mentally ill".)

His books are all ea y reads. However, if you prefer to just get your info from the Net, you can find plenty of stuff about him on the Net, including some video on utube, I've never bothered to check out, yet.

Thanks, I'll check him out. He indeed sounds very radical, but if taken with reserve, he says exactly the same things as Eckhart Tolle, for example. Which means that I can agree with some of his conclusions I know of, though I'd take them a bit more metaphorically. But of course, I'll have to find more about him, more than I could in this short break between work and sleep.

Basically, I consider the esoteric psychology (in which I'm somewhat educated) as a very useful thing, and I search for it's official (exoteric) representation, within the science, if possible. Thus there are some things which I'm looking for. Humanism is fine, as a beginnig. But also, example, bringing down the fallacious emotionality-intellect dualism. Instead, above the intellect there shall be one more higher quality, which starts to grow when the intellect is already developed. The intuition and abstract idealistic thought should be creative directly, without the necessity of tedious, mechanistic process of lower intellect. This light of higher mind also has a superior power to destroy emotional problems. This would be a revolution in psychologic treatment, and even treatment of drug addicts. There are other important conclusions of esoteric psychology on the normal life. For example, the impact of drugs. A person under the influence of psychopharmacology may appear perfectly normal, while he or she is not. The difference is quickly shown on an attempts to apply a form of, let's say, regression therapy on him or her. The correct reactions of brain does not occur and such a person is unable of what a 'clean' one would do very easily. Meds and drugs are thus not as side-effect-less, as it was thought. These are perfectly valid ways to achieve a superior understanding of oneself and the people. Unfortunately, they're usually not taken seriously by the experts, just because they sound like a spiritual teaching or whatever. But if you still have any confidence in the psychiatry and psychology, look at that video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McPnMQ31W_kMany people must prefer an alternative medicine over the official one, because it is very secure. No alternative medicine man can take away your rights, social prestige and personal freedom.

I was about one word from finishing a response, but hit
something with my PDA stylus which threw the thing into oblivion.

I don't have the energy or desire to reconstruct a response again, primarily because your post requires a lengthy reply.

If you wouldn't mind reducing
the size and subjects of your posts in response to mine, I'd be more inclined to respond again. However, what was in your above response really deserves a lengthy reply, and I just don't have a bloggers inclination to retry a response of the length I previously worked on.

Chop up your post, miimize your questions per post, as well as, try to limit your subjects of inquiry or of your thought to a more manageable level, and I'll respond.

I was about one word from finishing a response, but hit something with my PDA stylus which threw the thing into oblivion. I don't have the energy or desire to reconstruct a response again, primarily because your post requires a lengthy reply. If you wouldn't mind reducing the size and subjects of your posts in response to mine, I'd be more inclined to respond again. However, what was in your above response really deserves a lengthy reply, and I just don't have a bloggers inclination to retry a response of the length I previously worked on. Chop up your post, miimize your questions per post, as well as, try to limit your subjects of inquiry or of your thought to a more manageable level, and I'll respond. Thanks in advance.

Sincere condolence. It happened to me sometimes, before I learned to use Ctrl+C and in case of longer posts, saving it (Ctrl+S) in the one Notepad .txt file I have for that purpose.

There are no questions in my post of response, so I'll only give the points, less or more. Modern psychology (and psychiatry) is insufficient. It often does not know the causes of problems, and thus can not effectively cure them. I also mention an example of negative side effect of the head pills, which is quite serious. The video link ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McPnMQ31W_k ) supports my doubts about the scientific understanding of mind. (features a practical experiment by the psychologist you mentioned)

Next point is, that there is also an esoteric psychology. I claim, that it has a great importance for the people today.

I also refuse the fallacious dual pair of opposites, of rational intellect vs. irrational emotions. I claim that in fact, there is at least one more higher principle of intuitive, immediately-knowing, creative "higher mind" which is a human aspect superior to the mechanistic intellect. (but which only develops after the intellect is developed) This is a key to the further improvement of human consciousness, for which there is a great need today. I think that current official schools of psychology have no idea about this, and thus are not optimal.

Is that shortened enough? You can rest for a week or two, get some new thoughts, etc. Thanks for your interest.

"Modern psychology (and psychiatry) is insufficient. It often does not know the causes of problems, and thus can not effectively cure them. I also mention an example of negative side effect of the head pills, which is quite serious."

During the past few decades much medical research has been done. For example, it's now widely accepted that OCD
and schizophrenia are due to chemical imbalances in the brain.

It's also widely accepted that the most effective treatment of both conditions are via psychotropic drugs.
The drugs are not cures,
they only can counteract (to varying degrees), the symptoms of various "imbalances".

Although, it should be said that even today, many psychiatric social workers, psychologists, and a few psychiatrists trained many decades ago, still refuse to admit the causes of OCD as chemical imbalances, and treat a variety of OCD conditions w/o drugs, and via Behavioral and / or Humanist based Therapy. (There have been some (albeit few) patients that attribute having being "cured", via such techniques.) The vast majority are treated with psychotropics.

As per schizophrenia, virtually no one but RDL attribute it to purely social conflict... i.e. since the Freudian school dissappeared.

As per psychology, let's say
it's not your thing.

You envision humans as capable of purely rational thought and behavior, while
in psychology that is not accepted as possible, nor is it a goal of psychology.

Additionally, your dissatisfaction with psychological schools of thought is because you have an philosophical view of humans that encompasses elements of Theism (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), as well as, elements of metaphysics (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), and finally your >>>refuting<<< humans as inseparable from irrational thought and / or behavior.
The latter of the mentioned
philosophical ideas I mentioned with regard to your philosophy is fundamentally opposed to acceping what
is schools of psychology propose, except for certain aspects of the Behavioral school of Skinner and Pavlov, in which we are effectively ants, driven by logical responss to avoid negative reenforcement, and seeking out positive reenforcement.
Granted, you're saying more, but, I think you should have a fundamental understanding of what your philosophical views propose, in terms of
at least one of the schools of psychology.

As to what drugs do and can't do... let's say that we both would not want potentially violent and paraniod schizophrenics off their Meds.

As to a psychological schools beings formulated based upon something resembling an exact science, such as that which is based upon a mathematical construct, I've alread addressed why your philosophical views don't permit you to accept (and I would say "understand") the basis of the variety of schools of thought, within psychology.

There's plenty more, but this is already way too fucking long a response.

During the past few decades much medical research has been done. For example, it's now widely accepted that OCD and schizophrenia are due to chemical imbalances in the brain.

It's also widely accepted that the most effective treatment of both conditions are via psychotropic drugs. The drugs are not cures, they only can counteract (to varying degrees), the symptoms of various "imbalances".

This is exactly what I am trying to say. If you consider the chemical imbalances as a cause, you can only treat symptoms. These very chemical imbalances may be a symptom of something. Why and how do these chemical imbalances occur, in the first place? That is the correct question.

treat2 wrote:

Although, it should be said that even today, many psychiatric social workers, psychologists, and a few psychiatrists trained many decades ago, still refuse to admit the causes of OCD as chemical imbalances, and treat a variety of OCD conditions w/o drugs, and via Behavioral and / or Humanist based Therapy. (There have been some (albeit few) patients that attribute having being "cured", via such techniques.) The vast majority are treated with psychotropics.

The people's problem is not that their body does not produce enough of Ritalin, Prozac, Valium, Methadone, and so on. Their problem is something else what causes the symptoms called OCD, and when this something will be found and cured, there will be no need for medications. Unfortunately, that problem usually is our society, our so-called civlization and way of living. It is so unnatural and toxic, that everyone have some sort of a problem, some less, some more, and some more than they can survive. Our basic rights and needs are being severely denied and that has a direct psychosomatic response of all kinds.

treat2 wrote:

As per psychology, let's say it's not your thing.

You envision humans as capable of purely rational thought and behavior, while in psychology that is not accepted as possible, nor is it a goal of psychology.

No, I view humans as a mostly emotional beings, with beginnings of rational thought and potential of super-rational, intuitive thought. That is the average of humanity. The uncontrolled emotionality causes us a huge amount of destruction, when armed by the newborn intellect, the goal is to get it under personal control. People like me are constantly working on themselves. This is why I've been called always so calm, polite and kind, there's a lot of time and effort behind it.

treat2 wrote:

Additionally, your dissatisfaction with psychological schools of thought is because you have an philosophical view of humans that encompasses elements of Theism (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), as well as, elements of metaphysics (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), and finally your >>>refuting<<< humans as inseparable from irrational thought and / or behavior.

I work with a concepts which can mostly be verified in personal practice. Besides that, there is a model, a theory, which seems to you "theistic". I can not transfer an evidence, I can only spread the theory and let people verify it for themselves. If it's a functional model, then it also may be a true model, but why and how, that's up to scientists to find out.

I don't say that humans are inseparable from rational thought or not. I say that it is necessary to differ between emotionality, intellect and higher, intuitive thought. There is no "good, rational thought" and "bad, irrational thought". There is "bad, irrational emotional thought", "rational, but limited intellect" and "unlimited, directly creative, intuitive thought, which is intrinsically good". That's what I say. People tend to have a various degrees of these in their behavior.

treat2 wrote:

As to what drugs do and can't do... let's say that we both would not want potentially violent and paraniod schizophrenics off their Meds.

Sure, some of us still remember Greydon Square's right hook.

treat2 wrote:

As to a psychological schools beings formulated based upon something resembling an exact science, such as that which is based upon a mathematical construct, I've alread addressed why your philosophical views don't permit you to accept (and I would say "understand&quot the basis of the variety of schools of thought, within psychology.

Yeah, I have found a working model and I have a hard time understanding why do we need all the old, outdated models of human being. It is easy to reduce a person on a machine (my factory bosses can do that very well), but it is a great art to humanize and lift that person's consciousness. We also need to make that a science and apply it everywhere on everything. Until then, there must be metaphysic terms before they can be replaced with equivalent scientific terms, of the science which does not yet exist today.

treat2 wrote:

There's plenty more, but this is already way too fucking long a response.

Well, maybe for you All right, respond when you can and when you want. I have a technique for a patient waiting, it is called forgetting about the subject being waited for, and then being pleasantly surprised when it shows up again.

During the past few decades much medical research has been done. For example, it's now widely accepted that OCD and schizophrenia are due to chemical imbalances in the brain.

It's also widely accepted that the most effective treatment of both conditions are via psychotropic drugs. The drugs are not cures, they only can counteract (to varying degrees), the symptoms of various "imbalances".

This is exactly what I am trying to say. If you consider the chemical imbalances as a cause, you can only treat symptoms. These very chemical imbalances may be a symptom of something. Why and how do these chemical imbalances occur, in the first place? That is the correct question.

treat2 wrote:

Although, it should be said that even today, many psychiatric social workers, psychologists, and a few psychiatrists trained many decades ago, still refuse to admit the causes of OCD as chemical imbalances, and treat a variety of OCD conditions w/o drugs, and via Behavioral and / or Humanist based Therapy. (There have been some (albeit few) patients that attribute having being "cured", via such techniques.) The vast majority are treated with psychotropics.

The people's problem is not that their body does not produce enough of Ritalin, Prozac, Valium, Methadone, and so on. Their problem is something else what causes the symptoms called OCD, and when this something will be found and cured, there will be no need for medications. Unfortunately, that problem usually is our society, our so-called civlization and way of living. It is so unnatural and toxic, that everyone have some sort of a problem, some less, some more, and some more than they can survive. Our basic rights and needs are being severely denied and that has a direct psychosomatic response of all kinds.

treat2 wrote:

As per psychology, let's say it's not your thing.

You envision humans as capable of purely rational thought and behavior, while in psychology that is not accepted as possible, nor is it a goal of psychology.

No, I view humans as a mostly emotional beings, with beginnings of rational thought and potential of super-rational, intuitive thought. That is the average of humanity. The uncontrolled emotionality causes us a huge amount of destruction, when armed by the newborn intellect, the goal is to get it under personal control. People like me are constantly working on themselves. This is why I've been called always so calm, polite and kind, there's a lot of time and effort behind it.

treat2 wrote:

Additionally, your dissatisfaction with psychological schools of thought is because you have an philosophical view of humans that encompasses elements of Theism (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), as well as, elements of metaphysics (the "higher" thing you referenced in your 1st post), and finally your >>>refuting<<< humans as inseparable from irrational thought and / or behavior.

I work with a concepts which can mostly be verified in personal practice. Besides that, there is a model, a theory, which seems to you "theistic". I can not transfer an evidence, I can only spread the theory and let people verify it for themselves. If it's a functional model, then it also may be a true model, but why and how, that's up to scientists to find out.

I don't say that humans are inseparable from rational thought or not. I say that it is necessary to differ between emotionality, intellect and higher, intuitive thought. There is no "good, rational thought" and "bad, irrational thought". There is "bad, irrational emotional thought", "rational, but limited intellect" and "unlimited, directly creative, intuitive thought, which is intrinsically good". That's what I say. People tend to have a various degrees of these in their behavior.

treat2 wrote:

As to what drugs do and can't do... let's say that we both would not want potentially violent and paraniod schizophrenics off their Meds.

Sure, some of us still remember Greydon Square's right hook.

treat2 wrote:

As to a psychological schools beings formulated based upon something resembling an exact science, such as that which is based upon a mathematical construct, I've alread addressed why your philosophical views don't permit you to accept (and I would say "understand&quot the basis of the variety of schools of thought, within psychology.

Yeah, I have found a working model and I have a hard time understanding why do we need all the old, outdated models of human being. It is easy to reduce a person on a machine (my factory bosses can do that very well), but it is a great art to humanize and lift that person's consciousness. We also need to make that a science and apply it everywhere on everything. Until then, there must be metaphysic terms before they can be replaced with equivalent scientific terms, of the science which does not yet exist today.

treat2 wrote:

There's plenty more, but this is already way too fucking long a response.

Well, maybe for you All right, respond when you can and when you want. I have a technique for a patient waiting, it is called forgetting about the subject being waited for, and then being pleasantly surprised when it shows up again.

I think you're intelligent and educated enough to understand the perspective which differs from your own.

Consider that as psychology deals much with irrational humans there is no mathematical equation or metaphysical philosophy or school of psychology which can ever be exact or predictive of a vast array of INVOLUNTARY behaviors and INVOLUNTARY thoughts.

The questions you're interesed in with regard to Psychology do not include the VOLUNTARY behavious and thoughts you mentioned regarding yourself
I'm of course referring to what is formally referred to as "Abnormal Psychology".

If you're further interested in the chemical imbalances I referred to, you can google them.

As to why such chemical imbalances occur, you will find that studies have shown a genetic predisposition to them. Studies of schizophrenia have involved identical twins separated after birth and reared in different environments.

Are you getting that I was a Psych major? Yeah, but I don't have the personal disposition to have worked in that field. Do you get that, as well? lol.

No, brains don't make stuff like Tranxine, and anti-psychotic drugs. The lack of, or predominance of a variety of other chemicals can be found in the studies, and I'm sure can be googled
if your interesed.

Genetics, environmental factors, and personal experiences are the primary causal factors which lead to
and predispose one towards "INVOLUNTARY" and "DEVIANT" behaviors. Instincts, etc., included in genetics.

As to psychology, it's not math, nor a religion, nor an exact science. As you said, humans are not entirely rational creatures, as such
psychology, like medicine, will never be an exact science, as we exhibit a variety of reactions to what might or might not be, the same things.

A last thing which to one whom seeks definitive answers in psychology, such as may be given in mathematics. This might seem counter-intuitive...

You have used the words "must" and "should".

When such "iprecepts" cause you personal problems, and result in an inability to achieve inner peace, there are several schools of psychology which pronounce your thoughts are irrational.

Perhaps that is why you refute psychology as being of no practical value.

On that, I would disagree, in some cases, but not as you propose... in it's entirety.